![first grade spelling words in alphabetical order first grade spelling words in alphabetical order](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c7/0d/ec/c70dec6a191372033d76037a77ca7a64.jpg)
![first grade spelling words in alphabetical order first grade spelling words in alphabetical order](https://data.templateroller.com/pdf_docs_html/601/6011/601178/first-grade-spelling-words-list-first-grade-sight-words_big.png)
If English was more like Finnish, with everyone pronouncing the language pretty consistently, and a written symbol for every phoneme in the language, I would conclude from all of this that we only need to teach letter sounds. On the other hand, if I already have mastered the sounds, then they may be used to facilitate my learning of the letter names. If I know my letter names, and they give me a clue that will help me learn the sounds, then I do that. Then, when the kids try to learn the second list, they use what they already know to make the task go easier. Essentially, the researchers figured that learning that first list of letters or sounds is just arbitrary memorization. There, the kids use their knowledge of sounds to help in the mastery of the letter names (Ellefson, Treiman, & Kessler, 2009). with those in England, where letter names are introduced later than letter sounds. One cool natural experiment compared children in the U.S. That means that many kids start school knowing at least some of the letter names and that knowledge may be the reason why letters do more to help sound learning, rather than the opposite. Old fashioned toys like wooden blocks emphasize letter naming, as do the latest technological gadgets. In the U.S., children tend to learn letter names quite early – look at the number of toys that emphasize this knowledge (type “letter name toys for infants” into Google and you get more than 8 million hits) or the Head Start curriculum. That learning advantage may be something specifically American, however. Another study (Kim, Petscher, Foorman, & Zhou, 2010) found that letter name knowledge had a larger impact on letter-sound acquisition than the reverse, and that phonological awareness had a larger impact on letter sound learning when letter names were already known. One instructional study with preschoolers found that teaching letter names together with letter sounds led to improved letter sound learning when compared to just teaching the sounds alone (Piasta, Purpura, & Wagner, 2010) – and this benefit was clearly due to the combination and not to any differences in print exposure, instructional time or intensity. Those confusions do occur, but more often the letter names facilitate the learning of letter sounds – because the names and sounds are usually in better agreement than in the confusing instances (Treiman, et al., 2008 Venezky, 1975) and letter names seem to be more effective than sounds in supporting learning early in the progression (Share, 2004 Treiman, 2001).
![first grade spelling words in alphabetical order first grade spelling words in alphabetical order](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/16/9b/eb/169beb2f692d81928bc9a39f1cedd2a8--first-grade-spelling-spelling-lists.jpg)
Nevertheless, newer and more relevant research has shown that letter names may play an important role in early literacy learning. An example of this were my first graders who figured that “what” must begin with the /d/ sound (using the name of the letter “w” as a clue to its sound, an approach that works often but not always). Later, Diane McGuiness (2004) in her popular book argued against teaching letter names because they can be a hindrance in some situations. Samuels conducted some small studies with an artificial orthography and found that the “letter” names were neither necessary nor useful for college students learning to read this new spelling system. There has been some disagreement over whether it is a good idea to teach letter names at all. In this case, there is a research record that at least provides some important clues as to what the best approach may be. A good deal of psychological study of letters and words over the past century hasn’t been so much about how best to teach reading as much as an effort to understand how the human mind works. That shouldn’t be too surprising since researchers approach reading a bit differently than the classroom teacher. This is such a practical question and often research fails to answer such questions. Should we teach the letters first, the sounds first, or should we teach them together? However, my colleague and I are disagreeing over one aspect of our program. We are trying to follow the science of reading.